Nietzsche’ condemnation of Christianity
Option 1:
Answer One of the below questions. Your answers should be about 1000 to 1500 words (three to five typed double spaced pages). Be sure to footnote any references to secondary sources.
Penalties will be assessed for lateness.
1. Nietzsche’ condemnation of Christianity holds it to be a “decadent” religion, one without “a single point of contact with reality.” Develop and discuss the nature of his critique and the consequences that might follOw from adopting his view.
2. Nietzsche held that “there are no moral facts.” What does he mean by such a statement and what are the consequences of subscribing to its truth? He also claims that morality is essentially “anti-nature” in its demands. What does he mean by this claim? Would Freud be sympathetic to such a view?
3. What, in essence, is Nietzsche’s thesis regarding the “will to power”? Explain and discuss.
4. Discuss the meaning and implications of Nietzsche’s “mad man” scenario as it plays itself out in The Gay Science (EDS 125 — 127).
5. The Kaufmann collection of “existential readings” dontains several essays authored by the French existentialist, J.P. Sartre. Develop any one of the following with regard to the meanings and messages contained therein: (a) The short story, The Wall, (b) Existentialism as a Humanism, (c) Sartre on self-deception, (d) Sartre on Marxism, (e) Sartre on Anti-Semitism or (f) Sartre on violence (See the preface to Fanon’s, The Wretched of the Earth).
6. The Kaufmann volume ends with the Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. Why does Kaufmann include (and conclude) his collection with this particular piece?
7. Discuss Fanon’s theory of violence and its justification as articulated in the first section of The Wretched of the Earth.
Option 1:
Answer One of the below questions. Your answers should be about 1000 to 1500 words (three to five typed double spaced pages). Be sure to footnote any references to secondary sources.
Penalties will be assessed for lateness.
1. Nietzsche’ condemnation of Christianity holds it to be a “decadent” religion, one without “a single point of contact with reality.” Develop and discuss the nature of his critique and the consequences that might follOw from adopting his view.
2. Nietzsche held that “there are no moral facts.” What does he mean by such a statement and what are the consequences of subscribing to its truth? He also claims that morality is essentially “anti-nature” in its demands. What does he mean by this claim? Would Freud be sympathetic to such a view?
3. What, in essence, is Nietzsche’s thesis regarding the “will to power”? Explain and discuss.
4. Discuss the meaning and implications of Nietzsche’s “mad man” scenario as it plays itself out in The Gay Science (EDS 125 — 127).
5. The Kaufmann collection of “existential readings” dontains several essays authored by the French existentialist, J.P. Sartre. Develop any one of the following with regard to the meanings and messages contained therein: (a) The short story, The Wall, (b) Existentialism as a Humanism, (c) Sartre on self-deception, (d) Sartre on Marxism, (e) Sartre on Anti-Semitism or (f) Sartre on violence (See the preface to Fanon’s, The Wretched of the Earth).
6. The Kaufmann volume ends with the Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. Why does Kaufmann include (and conclude) his collection with this particular piece?
7. Discuss Fanon’s theory of violence and its justification as articulated in the first section of The Wretched of the Earth.
Option 2:
Write a review/discussion of one of the four books listed below. Each explores a circumstance concerned with man’s inhumanity to man. References to any of the individuals examined in the course would be appropriate. Secondary sources may be employed in any way you see fit but must appear in your footnotes and bibliography.
Length: Approximately 1200— 1500 words, 4 to 5 typed double spaced pages.
1. Survival in Auschwitz by Primo Levi.
2. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown.
3. We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families by Philip Gourevitch.
4. The Slave Ship: A Human History by Marcus Rediker.
Option 3:
Write a review/discussion of one of the four books listed below. Each explores a circumstance concerned with man’s inhumanity to man. References to any of the individuals examined in the course would be appropriate. Secondary sources may be employed in any way you see fit but must appear in your footnotes and bibliography.
Length: Approximately 1200— 1500 words, 4 to 5 typed double spaced pages.
1. Survival in Auschwitz by Primo Levi.
2. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown.
3. We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families by Philip Gourevitch.
4. The Slave Ship: A Human History by Marcus Rediker.
Option 3:
Answer One of the below. Your paper should be between four and six double- spaced typed pages (approximately 1200 — 1800 words).
The below selection, excerpted from Hannah Arendt’s, Eichmann in Jerusalem, represents what she would have addressed to Eichmann at the conclusion of his trial for crimes against humanity. Arendt seeks to justify the death sentence in Eichmann’s case. What is the lesson that Arendt is teaching Eichmann regarding the nature of evil and why he is to be judged as evil? In framing your answer you may be aided by making reference to secondary sources of your choice. You may take exception to Arendt’s judgment of Eichmann, by maintaining that her condemnation of him is somehow off the mark. Feel free to critique her stance regarding the nature and degree of his guilt and her suggested response to his “crimes” by way of punishment. How would an existentialist such as Sartre have judged Eichmann?
The below selection, excerpted from Hannah Arendt’s, Eichmann in Jerusalem, represents what she would have addressed to Eichmann at the conclusion of his trial for crimes against humanity. Arendt seeks to justify the death sentence in Eichmann’s case. What is the lesson that Arendt is teaching Eichmann regarding the nature of evil and why he is to be judged as evil? In framing your answer you may be aided by making reference to secondary sources of your choice. You may take exception to Arendt’s judgment of Eichmann, by maintaining that her condemnation of him is somehow off the mark. Feel free to critique her stance regarding the nature and degree of his guilt and her suggested response to his “crimes” by way of punishment. How would an existentialist such as Sartre have judged Eichmann?
CLICK HERE FOR MORE ON THIS TOPIC
“You admitted that the crime committed against the Jewish people during the war was the greatest crime in recorded history, and you admitted your role in it. But you said you had never acted from base motives, that you never had any inclination to kill anybody, that you never hated Jews, and still that you could not have acted otherwise and that you did not feel guilty. We find this difficult, though not altogether impossible, to believe; there is some, though not very much, evidence against you in this matter of motivation and conscience that could be proved beyond reasonable doubt. You also said that your role in the Final Solution was an accident and that almost anybody could have taken your place, so that potentially almost all Germans are equally guilty. What you meant to say was that where all, or almost all, are guilty, nobody is. This is an indeed quite common conclusion, but one we are not willing to grant you. And if you don’t understand our objection, we would recommend to your attention the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, two neighboring cities in the Bible, which were destroyed by fire from Heaven because all the people in them had become equally guilty. This, incidentally, has nothing to do with the newfangled notion of “collective guilt,” according to which people supposedly are guilty of, or feel guilty about, things done in their name but not by them — things in which they did not participate and from which they did not profit. In other words, guilt and innocence before the law are of an objective nature, and even if eighty million Germans had done as you did, this would not have been an excuse for you.
Luckily, we don’t have to go that far. You yourself claimed not the actuality but only the potentiality of equal guilt on the part of all who lived in a state whose main political purpose had become the commission of unheard-of crimes. And no matter through what accidents of exterior or interior circumstances you were pushed onto the road of becoming a criminal, there is an abyss between the actuality of what you did and the potentiality of what others might have done. We are concerned here only with what you did, and not with the possible non-criminal nature of your inner life and of your motives or with the criminal potentialities of those around you. You told your story in terms of a hard-luck story, and, knowing the circumstances, we are, up to a point, willing to grant you that under more favorable circumstances it is unlikely that you would ever have come before us or before any other criminal court.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that it was nothing more than misfortune that made you a willing instrument in the organization of mass murder; there still remains the fact that you have carried out, and therefore actively supported, a policy of mass murder. For politics is not like the nursery; in politics obedience and support are the same. And just as you supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of other nations, as though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world, we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang.”
Luckily, we don’t have to go that far. You yourself claimed not the actuality but only the potentiality of equal guilt on the part of all who lived in a state whose main political purpose had become the commission of unheard-of crimes. And no matter through what accidents of exterior or interior circumstances you were pushed onto the road of becoming a criminal, there is an abyss between the actuality of what you did and the potentiality of what others might have done. We are concerned here only with what you did, and not with the possible non-criminal nature of your inner life and of your motives or with the criminal potentialities of those around you. You told your story in terms of a hard-luck story, and, knowing the circumstances, we are, up to a point, willing to grant you that under more favorable circumstances it is unlikely that you would ever have come before us or before any other criminal court.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that it was nothing more than misfortune that made you a willing instrument in the organization of mass murder; there still remains the fact that you have carried out, and therefore actively supported, a policy of mass murder. For politics is not like the nursery; in politics obedience and support are the same. And just as you supported and carried out a policy of not wanting to share the earth with the Jewish people and the people of other nations, as though you and your superiors had any right to determine who should and who should not inhabit the world, we find that no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. This is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang.”
No comments:
Post a Comment